Village of West Dundee v. First United Methodist Church
2017 IL App (2d) 150278
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The First United Methodist Church (Church) owns a deteriorating historic building at 310 W. Main St. in West Dundee (the 310 building); it has been uninhabitable since 2004.
- The Church sought a demolition permit in 2007 to create parking; the Village’s appearance review commission denied the request and the Church did not administratively appeal.
- In 2012 the Village issued a code correction order listing extensive repairs; the Church did not comply and the Village sued under Ill. Municipal Code § 11-31-1(a) seeking repair and receivership.
- The Church filed an amended countercomplaint asserting: (1) RLUIPA claims (substantial burden and unequal treatment) because denying demolition would financially ruin the Church and because the Village had permitted demolitions for nonreligious users; and (2) inverse condemnation (temporary taking) or mandamus/compensation.
- The trial court dismissed the amended countercomplaint (with prejudice) on failure-to-state-a-claim and exhaustion grounds, excluded Church evidence about repair costs/value, and later found the building dangerous and authorized Village repairs if the Church failed to act. Church appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Village) | Defendant's Argument (Church) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether amended countercomplaint states claims under RLUIPA (substantial burden) | Church failed to plead required facts; RLUIPA not implicated by property-maintenance code or vacant/uninhabitable building | Denial of demolition imposes substantial burden (repair costs would be ruinous; parking is religiously integral) | Counterclaim alleges sufficient facts to state RLUIPA substantial-burden claim; dismissal reversed |
| 2. Whether amended countercomplaint states RLUIPA unequal-treatment claim | No unequal treatment alleged; Village acted lawfully | Village permitted demolitions for commercial users but denied Church — alleges disparate treatment | Allegations that Village approved demolitions for nonreligious users state an unequal-treatment claim under RLUIPA; dismissal reversed |
| 3. Whether inverse condemnation claims are sufficiently pleaded | No taking; Village seeking repair under code does not constitute a taking | Denial of demolition and code enforcement deprived Church of use — a temporary taking | Allegations that government action deprived owner of use are sufficient to plead inverse condemnation; dismissal reversed |
| 4. Whether Church was barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Church failed to appeal 2008 denial of demolition permit, so claims are barred | Village initiated court action; exhaustion does not apply when government brings the proceeding | Exhaustion requirement inapplicable where municipality initiated proceedings; estoppel dismissal improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Stokovich v. Village of Lake Villa, 211 Ill. 2d 106 (Ill. 2004) (owner entitled to consider demolition as alternative relief under § 11-31-1(a))
- City of Aurora v. Meyer, 38 Ill. 2d 131 (Ill. 1967) (§ 11-31-1(a) contemplates repair where feasible and demolition where repair would be substantial reconstruction)
- Our Saviour’s Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naperville v. City of Naperville, 186 Ill. App. 3d 988 (Ill. App. 1989) (parking needs of a church are protected similarly to sanctuary use)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (regulatory action can effect a taking requiring compensation)
- World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2010) (RLUIPA substantial-burden pleading survives dismissal)
- Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2013) (definition of substantial burden under RLUIPA)
- Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) (RLUIPA shifting burdens: claimant pleads burden; government must prove compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (RLUIPA unequal-treatment and substantial-burden analyses)